usda_prices

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' action is consistent. The description adds scope context (any commodity, farmer prices) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, date range handling, or response format, so it minimally supplements the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and include useful examples. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and commodity flexibility. While it does not detail output structure or year range, those are inferable from the schema and the tool name, making it reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for year, state, and commodity. The description adds a general 'any commodity' statement and examples, but these largely overlap with the schema's commodity description. No additional meaning is provided for year or state beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns prices received by farmers for agricultural commodities, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('prices received by farmers'). It also differentiates from siblings like usda_crop_data and usda_livestock by emphasizing 'Works for any commodity' and providing examples spanning both crops and livestock.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use for any agricultural commodity price, with examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions but gives a strong sense of applicability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.